Meet Bishop Eaton

The Rev. Elizabeth A. Eaton was elected as the ELCA’s fourth presiding bishop at the 2013 ELCA Churchwide Assembly. Born in Cleveland on April 2, 1955, Eaton earned a Master of Divinity degree from Harvard Divinity School...

Luther and Lutheranism

Martin Luther was eight years old when Christopher Columbus set sail from Europe and landed in the Western Hemisphere. Luther was a young monk and priest when Michaelangelo was painting the Sistine Chapel in Rome...

ELCA Good Gifts Catalog

Assignment Process

Assignment completes candidacy for all people, including those ordained in another Lutheran church or Christian tradition, moving them toward first call and admittance to the appropriate roster in the ELCA...

In, With, and Under: The Lutheran Tradition and the Teaching of Christian Ethics

Pamela K. Brubaker

09/01/2003

[1] The study of Christian ethics can be a contentious
undertaking at church-related colleges, particularly if students
come from diverse religious backgrounds. Does the professor instill
students with the doctrines of the specific Christian tradition of
the college, expose them to a variety of Christian traditions,
include other religious and philosophical perspectives? What about
those students who have no religious background or commitment?
These questions about the teaching of ethics are indicative of the
debate over the purposes of Christian higher education. Many
critics are asking what Christian difference there is, if
any, in church-related liberal arts colleges.[1]

[2] I suspect that for some a concern for a strong doctrinal
purpose for Christian higher education is related to the belief
that society needs a religious basis -- usually understood to be
the "Judeo-Christian" tradition -- to thrive. That is, citizens
need a common identity, history, and purpose, which is provided by
a shared religion. There are those who claim, on the other hand,
that a common religion -- Christian, civil or otherwise -- is not
necessary for society to flourish.[2] Rather,
a commitment to democratic process is what binds us together.

[3] I affirm this latter position, but I also agree with those
who argue that this commitment includes acceptance of the
"democratic ideals of freedom, equality, and mutual respect."
(Thiemann, 173). In other words, there is a substantive basis
(however minimal), as well as a processual one, to our unity.
Beyond this, we seek to develop common ground, or what some call an
overlapping consensus, out of our distinctive religious or secular
traditions and perspectives in regard to a sense of the common
good.

[4] I hold that a primary purpose of a college education,
particularly at liberal arts colleges, is to educate for critical
citizenship in a democratic society and our rapidly changing global
community. A liberal arts education should help develop the skills
for participating in the democratic process and contribute to the
search for common ground.

[5] I recognize that for some students and their parents, a
college degree is understood to be the key to financial success.
Certainly, preparation for a career is an important function of a
college education. Yet, if that is all we do, I believe that we
have failed in our social and educational responsibilities.
Students need to develop their moral, intellectual, and civic
capabilities as well as prepare for a career. In an increasingly
complex world, the capacity to practice critical citizenship is
essential to one's own well-being and the betterment of the common
good.[3]

[6] Church-related colleges, I believe, share in this
responsibility. In addition to the scholarly disciplines, they
bring the resources of Christian faith to this task. There is a
synergy between the emphasis church-related colleges places on
questions of religion and ethics (Bunge, p. 3) and the current
concern within the discipline of religious studies to connect the
knowledge and insight from religious traditions "to the real
problems of society." (Plaskow, p. 534)

[7] In this chapter, I will examine one particular Christian
tradition, the Lutheran. I contend that this tradition --
particularly its dialectic of faith and reason -- has much to offer
as an approach to education for critical citizenship. I draw on my
experience at California Lutheran University to illustrate the
tradition's role in the teaching of Christian ethics. I discuss the
use of social statements of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in
America (ELCA) as a superb resource for this endeavor. (They depict
one denomination's efforts to relate a religious tradition to
social problems.) Although the historical study of Lutheran ethics
is not at the center of my course, the Lutheran dialectical,
confessional tradition is "in, with and under" the elements of the
course.

The Lutheran Tradition and Higher Education

[8] In my judgment, the dialectic between faith and reason
characteristic of the Lutheran tradition is a very useful approach
for the task of education for critical citizenship.[4] For Christian
higher education, it offers a model that encourages both freedom of
inquiry and church-relatedness. For secular higher education, it
provides an approach to religious studies that takes faith
seriously, along with critical inquiry. (I speak as one who taught
religious studies for four years in a public university.) Although
I am not Lutheran, I appreciate this tradition and its under
girding of the university in which I teach.

[9] The mission statement of California Lutheran University
(CLU) embraces this dialectic: "Rooted in the Lutheran tradition of
Christian faith, the University encourages critical inquiry into
matters of both faith and reason." The statement then identifies
the mission of the University "is to educate leaders for a global
society who are strong in character and judgment, confident in
their identity and vocation, and committed to service and justice."
These are characteristics not only of leaders, in my assessment,
but also of critical citizenship. This institutional mission
creates a meaningful context for teaching and learning.

[10] CLU, founded in 1959, is the youngest of the colleges
affiliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
(ELCA). About 30% of its students are Lutheran, with about the same
percentage Roman Catholic, and a small number of students from
other Protestant denominations or other world religions. A
significant number of students are what some call "unchurched,"
representatives of the secular southern California culture that
often thinks Christian means fundamentalist. About one-fourth of
our students are students of color (18% Latino is typical) or
international. We also have a significant number of reentry
students.

[11] As is fitting for a church-related college, CLU students
are required to take two religion courses as part of their general
education requirements. The first is REL 100: Introduction to
Christianity. The second is an upper-level elective. Many students
choose "Introduction to Christian Ethics," in part because the
Schools of Business and Education encourage their majors to take
this particular course. As these are large majors, many of the
students will come from these schools. Few are religion majors or
minors. This course is my primary teaching responsibility.

[12] Some might ask how one can have a dialogue between faith
and reason with such a diversity of religious backgrounds and the
strong secular representation? I perceive teaching Christian Ethics
in this setting as an opportunity. It is more characteristic
of the religious diversity of the "real" world than in a college
with a religiously homogeneous student population. At CLU, those
students who come shaped by a religious tradition are able to bring
their perspective into dialogue with others both inside and outside
the classroom. Students' faith may be strengthened or transformed;
in either case there is a maturing. In some cases, common ground is
discovered with those from other, or no, traditions. In regard to
ethics, some students come to realize that one can follow a
personal ethic while having a wider latitude of behaviors for
public policy, and that this is both reasonable and right.
Altogether, students learn respect for others different from
themselves and commitment to a common good.

[13] Although I would be hard pressed to claim that this
approach is distinctively or uniquely Lutheran, I believe it
certainly resonates with aspects of the Lutheran tradition.
Or as Darrell Jodock puts it, although the characteristics of a
college related to the Lutheran tradition "are not themselves
distinctive," their grounding is. (P. 15.) For instance, the
characteristic of serving the community and educating its leaders
is grounded in the Lutheran teaching of the "two kingdoms" or "two
governances." Again following Jodock, the first governance is
rooted in the Gospel (God's mercy and forgiveness) and the goal is
personal reconciliation. The second is exercised through social
structures "to bring order and justice to the world." College
education is focused primarily on this second form of governance.
"Its purpose is to enable young men and women to discern what makes
for justice and what preserves and enhances human dignity." (P.
18)

An Overview of a Christian Ethics Course

[14] An overview of specific aspects of my Christian ethics
courses will explain and support my position that critical inquiry
into matters of faith and reason is a useful approach to educate
for critical citizenship. The purpose of our upper-level
Introduction to Christian Ethics class, as stated in the catalogue,
is "to examine and analyze Christian ethics today, its relationship
to the Bible and Christian communities; and its thinking on such
important personal and social issues" as human sexuality,
bioethics, prejudice and oppression, ecology, economic life, war
and peace. Students engage in oral debate and group presentations,
prepare several case studies, and participate in a service learning
project.[5]

[15] Through these and other activities, such as lecture and
discussion, students critically reflect on their moral values and
principles in light of Christian faith and various philosophical
perspectives. Although I present the two aspects of ethics that
Larry Rasmussen and Bruce Birch call the ethics of being and the
ethics of doing, class assignments center on doing, especially
decision-making. I believe, though, that asking students to take a
stand on tough issues does help strengthen character.

[16] In my ethics classes I try to create communities of moral
discourse, in which students develop their ability to reflect on a
variety of ethical issues and to articulate a position in
conversation with those who may hold different faith commitments
and ethical positions. I try to make the classroom a safe space to
discuss controversial issues and to hear different points of view.
I do this in part by setting ground rules that I ask students to
adopt so that if we disagree with someone's ideas, we do not
attack them personally. We give each other the benefit of the
doubt, that we want our decisions to be moral. Also, I point out
that the positions we may take in class, for the sake of argument,
do not have serious consequences; we are not acting as legislators
or a jury, for instance. Thus we should be willing to critically
examine all positions.

[17] My Christian ethics class, although hopefully a safe space,
is also a site of critical inquiry into matters of both faith and
reason. This is due in part to the diversity of voices in the
classroom. (Exposure to a range of positions usually
facilitates critical thinking as to the strengths and weaknesses of
each.) To a small extent, the diversity of contemporary American
society is represented in the class. This, along with the fact that
students often do not know each other, makes the classroom
similar to a "public square." Students tell me that they have not
participated in such in depth discussions of the issues we cover
with people of such diverse views. I trust that students who
participate in this community of moral discourse for a semester
will be both motivated and better equipped to participate in such
communities, including public ones, after they leave college.

[18] Not all church-related colleges would embrace such freedom
of inquiry into matters of faith as well as reason. Such a stance,
though, is particularly appropriate for a Lutheran college. "There
are no issues, or authors, or viewpoints we may not think about,
write about, struggle with, care for," Tom Christenson contends in
his discussion of Lutheran epistemology in this volume. For him,
this is a corollary of God's redemptive gift of grace, which is at
the heart of Lutheran theology. Certainly this spirit of free
inquiry informs my class.

[19] Yet, at the same time, it is evident that persuasion plays
a role in my teaching. I want students to practice critical
citizenship and participate in communities of moral discourse. Is
there a contradiction between free inquiry and persuasion? Gerald
McDermott has persuaded me there does not need to be. As he stated
during the academy, "dialectical persuasion is not indoctrination,"
particularly when pursued with "fairness, balance, and
restraint."

[20] I try to persuade students of the rightness of an
understanding of the Christian moral vision as neighbor love,
interpreted as a commitment to peace and justice, and solidarity
with the poor and oppressed. These principles are central to
my own understanding of Christian discipleship. Yet, I recognize
that there may be legitimate differences of opinion as to what
constitutes love or justice in a specific situation. Although we
may agree that our faith calls for love and justice, in using
reason to discern what is just or loving we may differ as to
specific positions and strategies. This discernment is really what
ethics -- particularly the ethics of doing -- is all about.

[21] We engage in ethical reflection from the first day of class,
usually with the Bomb Shelter simulation. In this activity,
students work in small groups to select twelve people (all the
shelter can hold) from a list of twenty to be sheltered during a
terrorist nuclear attack on our area. Little is known of these
people, other than their sex, age, occupation, and in some cases
the race/ethnicity and/or religion and family status. They have
agreed to accept the decision of the groups, who are themselves in
a safe location and acting in an official capacity. The groups have
twenty minutes to choose how to make their decision and to complete
the activity. They are asked to track the reasons for their choices
and the emotions they feel. Although this activity can be
emotionally difficult, I like to use it as a quick and certain way
into the heart of what moral dilemmas are about.

[22] Many issues and feelings surface during the activity,
including the question of whether we ever have the right to make
decisions about who is to live or die. Is that "playing God?" If we
do make such decisions, how should we proceed? This activity
becomes the basis for an introduction to the elements of an ethical
decision, beginning with the distinction between deontological
(rule-binding) and teleological (goal-oriented) ethics. All
students hold to the rule that one does not take innocent life. But
are there situations in which one makes an exception to this rule
to achieve a worthy goal? Is it better to save twelve lives than to
lose twenty? Why, or why not?

[23] These questions relate to the evaluative element of an
ethical decision: What ought to be done in this case?
Questions about whom to include and on what basis -- potential
fertility, keeping a family together, ethnic or religious diversity
-- help clarify values and goals. Questions such as "Can the
shelter really only support twelve people? If so, what will happen
when the pregnant woman gives birth?" or "Can a diabetic
survive without insulin?" relate to the empirical element of an
ethical decision: What is the case? This involves
examining the relevant facts, concepts and theories, drawing on the
social and natural sciences. (Stivers, 1-12)

[24] Deepening our understanding of the evaluative element is a
primary focus of the course as we explore the moral traditions we
draw on in deciding what ought to be done. How do we use scripture
in doing ethics? What are the alternatives in Christian ethics,
philosophical ethics? Are Christian and philosophical
perspectives compatible? What should be the relationship between
the church and politics? Although these questions are discussed
separately at first, all are brought together in assignments, such
as case studies. But first, a brief sketch of these elements is
necessary.

[25] The discussion of scripture and ethics focuses on issues of
interpretation and authority. This directly raises the dynamic of
faith and reason. How do we use reason to interpret and appropriate
scripture? What authority should scripture have in our ethical
decision making? We read about both fundamentalist and liberal
approaches, often using issues around sexuality as an illustration
of the differences. But it is also important to remind students,
regardless of these differences, of the crucial role of scripture -
sola scriptura - for Martin Luther and the Reformation and thus
most Protestant denominations. This discussion of scripture and
ethics leads into a presentation of various theological ethical
approaches -- Roman Catholic, Lutheran, evangelical, theocentric,
liberationist -- as well as philosophical approaches -- humanism,
egoism, utilitarianism, behaviorism -- and the relationship between
these. (Crook.)

[26] In keeping with my goal of helping prepare students for
critical citizenship, I argue that it is important to ground one's
moral positions both religiously and philosophically. Such
grounding means one's arguments may appeal to a wider public, which
is crucial in a religiously pluralist society such as ours. I use
Martin Luther King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" as an
excellent model of this approach. King grounds his practice of
civil disobedience both religiously and philosophically by making
distinctions between God's law (religious) or the moral law
(philosophical) and human law.

[27] The last typology I find useful in developing a framework
for doing Christian ethics is how churches relate to social issues
-- or religion and politics. For this, I use Robert Benne's
article, "Hot and Cool Connections." Benne identifies four
approaches that specifies positions in terms of whether they are
direct or indirect, intentional or unintentional. The first two
approaches are both indirect. The first is the "ethics of
character," the shaping of the "deepest inward orientation of
persons" through preaching, teaching, worship and discipline. This
approach is indirect and unintentional in relating the church to
political life. Secondly, the "ethics of conscience" is also
indirect, but intentional in connecting the teachings of the church
to politics by activating the conscience of the laity.

[28] His third and fourth approaches are direct. The third
approach is "the church as corporate conscience," in which the
church acts directly to affect political life, through Papal
encyclicals, bishops' letters, and church social statements.
Finally, there is the church with power, in which the church moves
from persuasion to "more coercive" actions through its use of its
institutional power to affect public policy. Although we reflect on
each of these, we make extensive use of his third approach -- the
church as "corporate conscience."

The Use of ELCA Social Statements

[29] Elizabeth Bettenhausen has described Luther's use of reason
to discern justice for his time as a model for how we might do the
same. In my judgment, this is what ELCA social statements seek to
do. These statements are a significant aspect of our course
readings and assignments. I use these social statements to honor
our university's connection to the ELCA, for their value as models
of ethical reflection, and to contribute to ecumenical awareness of
the students. Since usually the majority of the students in the
class are not Lutheran, I explain that these documents are useful
case studies in how one church thinks about social issues. (I also
encourage students to explore the positions of other churches,
either through reference books in our library or links on our
course web page.)

[30] As not even most Lutheran students are familiar with these
social statements, a description of the process the ELCA uses in
preparing these documents is useful. Once the Churchwide Assembly
authorizes the preparation of a social statement, a task force is
formed, which includes clergy and laity. As the ELCA is a
college-related church, the committee may include faculty with
expertise on the particular topic under study. In some cases, a
detailed study is made available for church-wide use prior to the
drafting of a social statement. Groups who participate in the study
are invited to share their insights and concerns with the
committee. (Students are interested to learn that several of the
Lutheran students in one of my classes participated in this process
by responding to the study on economic life when I used it as one
of our texts.) Once a draft social statement is prepared, it is
circulated church-wide for comments. A revised draft is circulated
before the Division for Church and Society, the Church Council, and
then the Churchwide Assembly (made up of elected lay and clergy
delegates) votes on the social statement. A two-thirds majority is
required for adoption of a social statement.

[31] This review also presents an opportunity to compare and
contrast this approach with that of other churches -- a papal
encyclical, for example, or a congregational polity. When we use
the statements, we look at the use of scripture, theological
claims, social analysis, moral principles, and proposed actions.
Each statement reminds us of Luther's conviction that we are
justified by grace through faith, that our engagement in ethical
action is our response to God's grace.

[32] To illustrate the usefulness of these documents as
resources for critical inquiry into matters of faith and reason as
well as education for citizenship, I will describe three units in
the course: 1) Human Sexuality and Marriage, 2) Economic Life, and
3) War and Peace. I usually begin with the unit on sexuality and
marriage, as it is the one of most interest to students. It also
raises important issues in regard to both empirical and evaluative
elements of decision-making. What difference, if any, does what the
social sciences have to say about sexuality make to a Christian
ethic? Are the teachings of scripture on sexuality culturally
bound?

[33] As part of our exploration of this topic, we read the ELCA
Message on Sexuality. (Messages come from the Church Council and do
not have the same authority as a social statement.) I explain
about the failed attempts to develop a social statement on this
topic, which I attribute primarily to differences over
interpretation of scripture and the use of empirical evidence. Our
prior examination of conservative and liberal approaches to
scripture comes alive as we discuss marriage and divorce, or
homosexuality. Are more liberal churches accommodating to
contemporary culture? Or are they correcting a sex negative dynamic
some theologians think colored the Christian ethic historically?
Should one's personal or ecclesial ethic become public policy?

[34] In the unit on economic life, we draw on the ELCA study on
economic life, as well as other materials, to present facts and
theories. Students are generally much less informed about economic
reality -- including the interstructuring of racism, sexism, and
classism -- than they are about the sexual state of the
nation. Nor are they as familiar with what the scriptures say about
wealth and poverty as they are with what it says about
sexuality. Students read the parables of the vineyard (Mt.
20:1-16) and the talents (Mt. 25:14-30) or the stories of the rich
ruler (Lk. 18:18-30) and Zacchaeus (Lk. 19:1-10) in small groups
and discuss the passages in relation to each other. These passages
were chosen to illustrate different perspectives, at least on the
surface, and thus to challenge students to think more deeply.

[35] Students are introduced to the principle of "sufficient,
sustainable livelihood for all" through reading "A Social Statement
on Economic Life." They then use this principle to examine
relevant issues. A recent case study was on sweatshops, using
videos, readings, and a field trip. We concluded with a simulation
of a Disney stockholders meeting, which considered an
anti-sweatshop resolution. Groups of students represented
sweatshop workers in Haiti who made Disney clothing, the
anti-sweatshop National Labor Committee/People of Faith Network,
and Disney management and Board of Directors. They
worked to find common ground between enlightened self-interest on
the part of stockholders and managers and the concern for human
rights and "sufficient, sustainable livelihood for all" of workers
and activists.

[36] The unit on war and peace directly engages the issue of the
relation of religion and the state. We begin with an examination of
historic Christian approaches: crusade, just war, pacifism, and
liberation theology. One of our readings is the ELCA Social
Statement "For Peace in God's World." Of particular relevance is
its warning to citizens as "to how we in the United States perceive
our national interest and interpret our national identity, since
what states do depends in large measure on their views of their own
interests and identity." It cautions that "Sin's power often makes
itself felt in arrogant and self-righteous views of national
identity, and in narrow, short-term, and absolute views of national
interest."

[37] My most effective case study on this issue has been the
School of the Americas. We begin by viewing the film "Romero,"
which tells the story of Bishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador and his
assassination while celebrating the Eucharist. We then find out
more about the School of the Americans from both its critics and
its sponsor, the US Army. We learn that Bishop Oscar Romero and
many others in Central America were murdered by soldiers trained at
the School of the Americas. Students form groups to research and
represent particular positions, e.g., relatives of the disappeared
and assassinated, human rights and religious groups, the US Army
and SOA officials, and current Central American political and
business leaders - in a mock Congressional hearing on a bill to
close the SOA.

[38] The groups raise many significant questions during the
hearing. Is the School responsible for the actions of its students?
Should people of conscience support such a program? What is in the
interest of our national security? Who decides? It was more
difficult in this case to find common ground between the school and
its critics, although some students tried. The majority supported
closing the school. This case, perhaps more than any others, truly
requires the exercise of critical citizenship to ascertain what is
in our national interest.

Conclusion
[39] In this article, I have attempted to demonstrate that
critical inquiry into matters of faith and reason is a useful
approach in education for critical citizenship. I have illustrated
this approach through an overview of my Christian Ethics course and
its use of ELCA social statements. I hopefully have born out my
claim that while historical study of the Lutheran tradition may not
be the focus of my Christian Ethics course, the Lutheran
dialectical, confessional tradition is intertwined "in, with and
under" the elements of the course -- engaging, freeing and
transforming.

[40] For instance, we seldom talk directly about vocation after
introducing it as an important concept of Lutheran theology. Yet it
continues as a theme. "The use of reason for the discerning of
justice," Elizabeth Bettenhausen claims, "is effected primarily in
the social activity of vocation in the various structures of
society." (177) Students think about vocation in this
course in many ways, including how they might act as a citizen, a
consumer, a business person or professional, a member of a faith
community or non governmental organization, to practice their
ethics.

[41] Students are also challenged to question their ethics. For
instance, many strongly support the death penalty. Should they
maintain this position in light of Lutheran (and Catholic)
statements against the death penalty? It is in such matters where
one's predisposition is challenged by the teachings of one's faith
community that the confessional aspect of the tradition emerges
most clearly. What does it mean to confess faith in God as creator,
redeemer, and sustainer and to think about the death penalty? Or
human rights? Or sexuality? Or the poor and oppressed?

[42] One can be against the death penalty or support human
rights or be in solidarity with the poor and oppressed, I believe,
on philosophical humanist grounds. I see, though, that for many
students it is their faith that nudges them towards these
positions. It is a response to God's call to love of neighbor, no
matter how different the neighbor may be.[6]

This article was prepared during my participation in the first
class of the Lutheran Academy of Scholars (1999). I would like to
thank the other participants in the academy for their very helpful
comments on earlier drafts of this chapter, and also A. Joseph
Everson from California Lutheran University, and Marilyn Legge from
Emmanuel College, University of Toronto.

Plaskow, Judith, "The Academy as Real Life: New Participants and
Paradigms in the Study of Religion," 1998 AAR Presidential Address,
Journal of the American Academy of Religion
(September 1999), 521-538.

[2] There are also constitutional
issues at stake in this debate, particularly the antiestablishment
clause of the First Amendment. For an insightful analysis of this
issue, see Thiemann.

[3] I believe that education for
critical citizenship should also take place in secondary, and even
elementary, education but realize this -- particularly the critical
aspect -- is difficult, due in part to political factors. However,
the maturity level of college students enables an in-depth approach
not usually possible at earlier ages. There is a need for informal
education for critical citizenship for those who are not able to or
do not go to college, perhaps through community-based programs,
religious groups, or labor unions.

[4] See the discussion of models of
Christian higher education in Hughes and Adrian. Hughes
specifically discusses this Lutheran dialectic on pp. 6-7. Richard
Solberg&=javascript:goNote(39s chapter (pp. 71-81) provides a
more detailed discussion of "What Can the Lutheran Tradition
Contribute to Christian Higher Education?" Mark Granquist discusses
"Religious Vision and Academic Quest at St. Olaf College" (pp.
82-96) and Byron Swanson and Margaret Barth Wold present a
historical overview of "Faith and Learning at California Lutheran
University" (pp. 97-122). In this paper I am endorsing a Lutheran
model of higher education, yet I acknowledge a place for other
models, including Anabaptist, the tradition from which I come.

[5] I continue to question whether to
require service learning (community service) as a component of the
course. I usually require 8-10 hours over the course of a semester,
concluding with a reflection paper in which the student relates the
experience to themes from the course. But I am uncomfortable
requiring students to do what is essentially volunteer activity.
This was a hot topic at "The Vocation of a Lutheran College"
conference in August, 2000. Paul Hendrickson, campus pastor at
Roanoke College, and Ruth Henrichs, president of Lutheran Family
Services of Nebraska, eloquently advocated for colleges to require
community service. Some participants at the conference thought this
violated Lutheran notions of grace and freedom. For myself, I will
likely continue to require it as most students report they find the
activity valuable and probably would not have done it if it were
not required.

[6] In a paper he prepared during the
Academy, Mark Mattes states that although faith may be able to
accommodate a number of worldviews, "the standard of testing a
worldview for Lutherans ... ought to be whether or not a given
worldview is compatible with the cruciform existence of Christian
discipleship, one which seeks to honor God above all things and
seeks the neighbor&=javascript:goNote(39s and the earth's
well-being." I endorse this as a useful test for ethical
positions.

This is Christ's church.

There is a place for you here.
We are the church that shares a living, daring confidence in God's grace. Liberated by our faith, we embrace you as a whole person — questions, complexities and all. Join us as we do God's work in Christ's name for the life of the world.